Of course, I'm a highly partisan ass, but I hadn't looked at the speech that way. Unfortunately, Rush is right, I can't remember anything close by any past president that directly attacked so many citizens as well as politicians just for opposing him. He really doesn't have the natural personality nor the experience to control the one he has, which this job requires. He might make a good talk show host, but you just don't get enough face time.

Maybe someone can help me out here. With just the slightest give Obama could have gotten the support of RINOs like Snow and Collins and Lugar (to name just three) to pass a bill that would have given him 75 to 80% of what he wants, and he could have called it a bipartisan bill for cover. But there was no give in his speech last night, absolutely none. Frankly, I don't get it. Thoughts?

He's not very good at this stuff and his staff is deaf as a door nail. There are no opposing views in this White House and it shows. Could you imagine being on that staff and suggesting compromise. It would be wedgie time for you.

I'm not a political junkie, Jason, but I believe either Snow or Collins is not happy with the cost of health insurance and is pushing for portability across state lines. Obama could have made a concession in that area. Or he could have said we'll put in strictures against taxpayer funded healthcare for illegals. Just saying that there are lots of RINOs ready to jump. But they've got to have cover. Obama offered them nothing and now he won't get their cover.

He is trying to keep his coalition together. In so doing, he couldn't make a decent concessions to conservatives last night because his real position within the Democratic Caucus is actually weaker than at any time since he was inaugurated.

A bunch of D's on the Hill don't feel like being led as lambs to the slaughter so he can go down in the history books as the Black FDR. So he attacked the Do Nothing Republicans In the Pocket of Big Insurance and "That Woman" so he could attempt to cohere Democrats and deal with the Republicans from a Position of Strength.

A man with a strong hand of cards wouldn't have had to make that execrable, partisan speech last night. That's the whole point.

Long run? I don't think it pays off for him. Too many R's can see through it to the weakness of his hand.

This is the price of listening to people like Rahm and Arianna who declared that he could steamroll the Republicans and get his way for the past six months. Jesus. At least Clinton showed the capacity to learn and adapt.

I believe either Snow or Collins is not happy with the cost of health insurance and is pushing for portability across state lines.

So much for "states' rights." Or do the portability advocates somehow assume that South Dakota's cost to provide medical care can be translated to Manhattan? Can they make leases portable across state lines, too? I know my vet bills are higher than what they get in rural Oregon -- I want portability, now!

A man with a strong hand of cards wouldn't have had to make that execrable, partisan speech

But don't forget, pace Van Jones, the opposition is a bunch of assholes. How do you enlist their cooperation?

Well said. You are right on the money. He has been coddled all his life and, certainly, for all of his political life. His is a political ship adrift, lost, now that many people are no longer fawning over him (at least, those people that once did), no matter how the state-run media tries to distortingly (i.e., favorably) paint the picture. His days of being able to simply say "trust me" and get people to blindly drink his proverbial Kool-Aid are over...and, with that, he is struggling. But, truthfully, just as Obama has lost credibility, so too has the mainstream media. Their absolute devotion to "their guy" is patently obvious. Many people realize that and that's why their ratings are in the tank; Fox's ratings increase drastically, as does traffic to on-line blogs and media outlets.

Bottom line, we need to stay on the offensive and, as Rush has said, push back twice as hard. As inexperienced as The Messiah is, he is a dangerous radical hell-bent on dismantling our nation and shaping it to fit the ideals of he and his socialist/marxist brethren.

FLS said...So much for "states' rights." Or do the portability advocates somehow assume that South Dakota's cost to provide medical care can be translated to Manhattan? Can they make leases portable across state lines, too? I know my vet bills are higher than what they get in rural Oregon -- I want portability, now!

You confuse the Policy, e.g. the terms and conditions, with the premium charged for the policy.

different people in a given state, pay different prices for the same coverage depending on certain conditions, age, location, health etc.

what allowing firms to sell across state borders does in increase the risk pool, thus overall lowering risks and admin costs, while allowing a wider definition of "location".

You are confused. Portability refers to the ability to retain your insurance when you change jobs or careers.

As to the state diferences, that is mainly due to varying state requirements. For instance, New Jersey may require every policy include benefits for acupuncture, in vitro treatments, unlimited autism services, mental health, chiropractic. These rquirements increase the premium that insurance companies must charge.

If Pennsylvania did not have as many requirements as NJ, the policy in PA is less expensive than NJ.

In fact, my example reflects current conditions. I have heard a young single person in NJ has to pay like $600-$700 per month while it would be less than $200 if they moved ten miles across a river to PA.

But as the whole of the business is a violation of states rights it's not a question of reforms that respect states rights and reforms that don't.

Or do the portability advocates somehow assume that South Dakota's cost to provide medical care can be translated to Manhattan?

I've never heard this expressed as a question of cost but a question of what coverage is mandated. No?

But don't forget, pace Van Jones, the opposition is a bunch of assholes. How do you enlist their cooperation?

By not being an asshole. It's reciprocal but really does depend on who needs what from whom. Obama doesn't think he *needs* the opposition. All he wants from them is to shut up.

Speaking of Van Jones... you also have to treat your allies with a little top-down loyalty. Appointing Van Jones is trouble for Obama because people wonder why he didn't catch on that what seemed ordinary to him might seem extreme to others. But Jones' dismissal is trouble for Obama because it's yet another example of him failing to show top-down loyalty, which the "right" will despise and which is a signal to all of his *other* staff and appointees and allies that he will not stand up for them.

how about listing some more crude and disgusting performances by Presidents?

That assumes Obama's speech was crude and disgusting. I listened to the speech and did not find it crude and disgusting. I didn't listen to Rush telling me how to listen to the speech. But I'll admit, he should know crude and disgusting when he sees it.

former law student since when is where we buy local insurance or how local insurance sells to its customers a negation of a states rights? If the issue is federal regulation then states rights advocates would argue that the the federal govt is overstepping its bounds. If the issue is state regulation, then the states could simply change their regulations.

But as far as the govternment plan goes, the fact is that the govt plan will be able to bypass borders and market itself nationwide. Whereas, local insurance will be limited to only selling within state lines (thus already violating state regulations that restrict local insurance companies). How do local companies then compete?

AJ said...As to the state diferences, that is mainly due to varying state requirements. For instance, New Jersey may require every policy include benefits for acupuncture, in vitro treatments, unlimited autism services, mental health, chiropractic. These rquirements increase the premium that insurance companies must charge.

returning to Obama's Public Plan, that's why his claim that costs won't go up is so bogus.

today there are a variety of health plans in the country, some bare bones and some gold plated.

The House bill will prescribe that there be a Public Option. We know that Public Option will be larded up with every possible special interest mandate for care. like AJ cited for NJ.

The bill also says that in order to be conforming, existing plans must match or exceed the base Public Plan. If they dont, theu cant accept new enrollees and have to sunset in 5 years regardless.

the result is 2 fold.

1. Ultimately everbody is going to have to shift out of their existing plan to a conforming plan.

2. most everybody is going to end up with a super size plan that has a bunch of coverages that they will never use and dont want to pay for, but now must. Because all of us must have a policy that meets or exceeds the Public Plan.

costs must increase for everbody who isnt already in a solid gold plan because a gold plated plan will be the mandate

That assumes Obama's speech was crude and disgusting. I listened to the speech and did not find it crude and disgusting

Obama's speech was not crude. It WAS disgusting. The President of the United States instead of actually addressing the legitimate concerns that millions of people have about his 'plans' for our future....he calls us liars, stupid and basically to STFU. "Stop talking. The time for dissent is over...because I said so...You are liars"

I call that disgusting and a gross abuse of the Office of the Presidency

Now all of a sudden, everybody isn't agreeing with him and that gets to his thin skin. He is frustrated and angry that people arent falling all over themselves and getting with his program

I wonder if he's the kind of guy who doesn't slap hands and say "good game" when he loses.

Honestly, he doesn't act like someone who is willing to deal with someone who believes differently then he does, but this has infected a lot of the democratic party. Republican's are evil, etc. ad nauseum. He's bought into all that shit and he can't accept a difference of opinion as just that. It bothers me very much that he goes out and attacks private citizens for having different opinions. He's been doing it from day one, too.

Ann's hero Rush Limbaugh says at least once during every hour of his program that "Barack Obama hates America". Of course Rush hates now that the President is fighting back; Rush is a classic bully.

President Obama said last night in not so many words that as long as we can develop a system that does not break the country's finances and that will get us closer to having everyone covered he does not consider the public option to be essential to the final bill. I hope that Republicans of good will will take that offer and try to work towards a solution.

Ann Althouse on the other hand views this debate as seriously as she does American Idol. It is all a trifle to her. For Ann it is all "La-de-da, this is all so amusing!"

Unlike Ann and her state university provided tenure and platinum health care plan, as a small business owner my family's health care is not ironclad assured. Also, every year I have to figure out how to provide as many of my employees as I can decent with coverage without running my business into the ground.

As President Obama said last night, the Ann Althouse's of the world do not want to see the problem solved. They just want to play political games. In Ann's pathetic case it is not even for an ideological end. For Ann Althouse it is all just American Idol and finding it cute to "speak in an immoderate voice."

I guess being born comfortably middle class and never having to leave the university must be fun. Enjoy your Audi and newest Apple products Ann. I am sure they enrich your life immensely.

Well, Rush is an expert on the topic of crude and disgusting. However, as Beth points out, his analysis on this issue is a bit off. It's been a tough year for him, I guess, now that there's someone in the Oval Office who doesn't respect him or cares what he says, except to the extent it causes an irritant.

None of you Althouse Hillbillies including Ann Althouse herself make ad hominem attacks. Yeah, right. Never mind that it is Ann who has labeled this the blog of the "immoderate voice."

Also, as everyone who follows this blog knows (and I follow it sparingly to see what silly new height Ann will go to to earn her Hillbillies adulation) she did not vote for Obama based on any coherent policy/political point of view. As we all know she did so (and will probably do so again) based on what seems fashionable at that moment.

"It's been a tough year for [Rush], I guess, now that there's someone in the Oval Office who doesn't respect him or cares what he says, except to the extent it causes an irritant."

See now, this is one of those times when I wonder if we're all on the same planet.

The BEST possible thing for RUSH was that a Democrat win. Sure, he can pick on and criticize the Republican leadership and he didn't like McCain so he'd have been on McCain anyway, but this is like a Christmas Present for him.

Getting called out BY NAME by the President was so so so much better EVER than some imaginary respect of him would have been.

You know... I think this might be something like the old lament about why poor people, those "bitter clingers" and rubes in fly-over states, vote "against their interests." They don't. No matter how much befuddlement is spent over trying to figure out what is wrong with Kansas. It's a gross misunderstanding of what people's interests ARE and a blatant inability to put themselves in someone elses shoes.

"As if the previous administration encouraged a healthy exchange of opposing views."

Well, you don't know and can't because Bush followed a military sort of leadership rule where he had the back of his people and defended them in public and any disagreement and disunity was kept behind-doors.

Since he did the *public* parts according to this pattern I assume he also did the *private* parts according to this pattern and encouraged opposing views from his people behind-doors.

The problem is you Althouse Hillbillies are poseurs. I am the real deal.

I suspect like the fake veterans who brags about their heroics in battles that they never saw, most of you guys are middlings who pump up your egos about how individualistic you are while collecting your social security or state university paychecks. Real tough guys you all are.

Since he did the *public* parts according to this pattern I assume he also did the *private* parts according to this pattern and encouraged opposing views from his people behind-doors.

The repeated reports I have heard of GWB's management style was that he would seriously listen to everyone, and then be the "decider". After he made his decision, he expected everyone to be on board - which I think may have been why Powell was finally pushed out of State - no matter the personal loyalty, Powell and his people tried to go around the President.

In retrospect, what is amazing about the later Bush Administration is how clean it was, and how smoothly it ran. Probably too smoothly, because it probably should have made more waves.

What is also amazing is that the meme took hold that that Administration led the Culture of Corruption. I would suggest that more dirt and corruption has come out about those in the Obama Administration in 8 months than in the eight years of Bush (43). Heck, we now have a tax cheat running Treasury (and over the IRS), and an AG who got Mark Rich his pardon, and more recently has been investigating CIA "torture" while dismissing corruption charges against political allies like Richardson, the Black Panthers, and, of course, ACORN.

Let me know if there's any corruption in this health care legislation that rises to the level of Tom Scully and Billy Tauzin. They worked to get Medicare, Part D passed while obscuring the actual costs from Congress. At the same time, they were working to get themselves hired by the very companies who would benefit from Medicare, Part D.

Seven, we'll never know, but the right wing of the GOP made it clear that McCain would lose them if he picked a centrist VP. He was damned close to Obama in August, 2008, and making ground by sticking with the experience theme.

I think if he had picked Ridge, McCain could have taken Pennsylvania, for instance, but Ridge is pro-choice, and that wasn't going to be tolerated by the social cons. Well, look what they got instead.

Palin made it difficult to pound away on that theme, even though she had more executive experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined.

Okay Peter, I'll let you know when the level of corruption reaches that.

Charlie Rangel.John Murtha.William Jefferson.

Also, and I know that I speak for a vast number of people here, people stopped voting Republican precisely because Republicans stopped embracing fiscal responsibility and economic and political liberty.

Do you really believe that this aging country has moved left? We'll find out soon enough, but you are sorely mistaken.

Seven, it's easy to match corrupt congressman for corrupt conressmen. I'll take Delay and Cunningham and Renzi. Good old Renzi. It's widely suspected that someone at Justice tipped him off that the FBI was about to start listening to his phone conversations.

But back to my point about Tauzin and Scully -- these were the key author and an important administration point man on the legislation, and theire corruption was intimately tied to the legislation they were pushing.

Vice presidents now, Peter? Please. Do you think Biden swung the vote? Cheney? Palin did nothing for McCain. Nobody really wanted to vote for McCain and McCain was pressured by no one into picking any vice president. At what sloth pits do you find such fiction?

People didn't vote for McCain because they didn't want to vote for McCain. Or, like I did, they voted for him rather quietly and sadly. Nobody was fired up about McCain.

You are really not impressing me tonight.

More generally, the thesis of desperation doesn't really stick. If my party is in the minority in Congress and out of the presidency, and still winning the debate, I am not desperate. In fact, it's a little desperate to suggest desperation right now on your part.

Let me know if there's any corruption in this health care legislation that rises to the level of Tom Scully and Billy Tauzin. They worked to get Medicare, Part D passed while obscuring the actual costs from Congress. At the same time, they were working to get themselves hired by the very companies who would benefit from Medicare, Part D.

Humm. This seems a bit one sided. I think that you will find that it is time honored avocation of politicians to grossly underestimate the cost of the programs they are pushing. Medicare itself comes to mind off the top of my head. Or more recently, Harry Reid's bridge across the Colorado is now estimated to be costing three times it original worst case estimate.

Heck, if we are going there, what about the Civil Rights laws where we were promised that Affirmative Action was banned?

And, if we are talking about jumping the fence after leaving office, Washington, D.C. is filled with those folks.

But somehow it is all right if the politician had a (D) by his name. Mostly, I suspect, because the theory is that such self dealing is within the liberal playbook, but not the conservative one. After all, why go into politics, if you can't get rich? And, of course, they (the liberal politicians) all deserve getting rich from political office, because they sacrificed so much for the common man.

At least they aren't chairing the House committee that writes tax legislation, after having been caught repeatedly cheating on his taxes AND repeatedly lying to Congress about his net worth AND about where he lives, etc.

peter hoh - McCain's lead was squandered due to his exerable performance in the wake of the Bush/Paulson "surprise". You can't say it was Palin that lost it for him; he was losing it all by himself after August.

Seven, it's easy to match corrupt congressman for corrupt conressmen. I'll take Delay and Cunningham and Renzi. Good old Renzi. It's widely suspected that someone at Justice tipped him off that the FBI was about to start listening to his phone conversations.

If we are going back that far, how about Rosentowski and all those bandits with the House Bank.

Marc Ambinder? The? The dreidl? The guy who Mickey Kaus ridicules to high heaven for being a bloviating leftist who will say whatever sounds good, even if it completely contradicts his own earlier statements?

That Marc Ambinder?

Here's some advice: if you want to find out what conservatives are thinking, don't ask a spastic leftist who has no earthly idea what he is talking about.

If we are going back that far, how about Rosentowski and all those bandits with the House Bank.

But, realistically, what we need to look at is who is in Congress right now, how powerful are they, and how corrupt. Going back to DeLay doesn't really help the debate any, since he is long gone. As with Cunningham, etc.

The biggest lie of the night was that there are 500 billion in fraud waste and abuse just sitting out there to be reaped in Medicare and by doing that we can fund half of this new bill.

course the question is, "if it's that easy, why didn't the bad Bushies harvest those savings and turn the money into tax cuts?"

and why cant we go after that money now without this big bill?

Well, the fraud and abuse is out there. Don't know the magnitude. But it is there. Part of the reason for it being there is that there is a lack of enforcement. All that overhead that insurance companies have? Well, a big part of it is spent detecting fraud and abuse.

But that still doesn't answer the question of why not eliminate it right now, if it is so easy? I am sure that President Obama could easily get bi-partisan legislation through that only addresses that one subject. He isn't even trying, and I really didn't see anything in the House bill that would give the Administration any more real power there.

As Rush pointed out, this is probably the eighth Administration that has tried to eliminate fraud and waste in these programs, and this Administration is likely to do just as well as its predecessors.

@peter hoh:And doesn't anyone want to take issue with my statement that, coming from the president, urging the enemy to attack our troops is more crude and disgusting than calling one's critics liars?

It's not anywhere near as bad as when Churchill invited the Germans to invade and subjugate Britain:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle...

He is trying to keep his coalition together. In so doing, he couldn't make a decent concessions to conservatives last night because his real position within the Democratic Caucus is actually weaker than at any time since he was inaugurated.

But he is going to lose those centrist Democrats who got him those lopsided majorities in both Houses of Congress.

There are some 70 Democrats in the House who come from Districts that voted for either Bush (43) or McCain, and most had Republicans three years ago representing them. Forcing them to vote for the current health care legislative proposals will likely cost most of them their seats in 2010, esp. since many were suckered into voting for Cap and Trade, as well as the "stimulus" bill.

These are the Democrats he should be trying to bring on-board, and isn't.

Hey, Bruce at 10:51 brought up corruption. I took it to the topic at hand: pushing a health care bill through Congress.

If I remember right, I was commenting on the level of corruption in the Obama Administration versus the Bush (43) Administration. You brought up corruption by Republicans in Congress who are no longer there.

Bush and the military was another of those cognitive disconnects that the "left" in the form of the anti-war left never got.

The military was supposed to hate Bush. I won't say he was universally liked but he *was* liked and he was *trusted* to the extent that any military commander was trusted and if some of what he said FOR THE TROOPS gave the elite classes back home a case of the hives... screw 'em. He was talking to the troops.

Is there anyone pushing this bill who stands to personally gain by its passage?

Of course there are Peter, but we won't know who they are until they pass a bill, then take a job in the private sector.

You don't really think insiders are going to advertise their availability during negotiations do you? No one is going to blatantly advertise such conflicts of interest.

But, as the votes near, people will begin dropping hints and putting out feelers over a glass of wine and dinner. Calls will be made. And if a bill passes, then meetings/interviews will be arranged and salaries negotiated.

Peter hoh writes "Harsh Pencil, were there a lot of conservatives happy when the GOP held the House, Senate, and the White House? Besides the ones on K Street, I mean."

Yes. Conservatives are happy when we are out of power. We are happy when we are in power too. Our happiness doesn't depend on who is in government. We are just happier than you dudes. (Lots of research backs this up.)

If the storm is to renew itself, London will be ready, London will not flinch, London can take it again. We ask no favors of the enemy...We will have no truce or parley with you...you do your worst, and we will do our best.

"And yeah, I know that McCain was not loved by the base. But can someone who holds that view explain how he won the nomination?"

Firstly, everyone recognized that the whole nation was suffering war fatigue and BDS fatigue and a Republican win would be an uphill battle no matter what.

Second, McCain had a whole lot of people who thought he was moderate and centrist and a decent guy and knew who he was. He may have seemed "liberal" enough to win... bi-partisan and very much *not* Bush.

Third, the other candidates stole primary votes from each other but probably not from McCain. Fred and Giuliani and Huckabee and Romney.

Forth, people suffered from a very very bad case of trying to divine who other people would vote for and were far too easily persuaded that this group or that group would never vote for (fill in name here) because of (fill in shortcoming here) despite the fact that they, personally, did not have an objection. It was about believing that OTHER people were close minded, unreasonable bigots.

Fred had no fire. Giuliani was pro-choice and gun control. Romney was a Mormon. Huckabee... well, he was... Huckabee. I think he did so well because the people who liked him *didn't* try to second guess all the other voters.

Also and lastly... Obama ran against Bush for President, so it all was moot.

I called you an idiot, because the alternative was to call you a liar. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Look, "bring it on" may have been ill-advised rhetoric, or not. But it is not a literal call for the death of American troops at the hands of their enemies, and it is either stupid, or dishonest, for you to pretend it was.

Take your pick. It seems you have chosen "stupid". Learn from your mistakes, and you won't be.

You want disgusting from a president? How about Bush urging terrorists to attack our soldiers?

Bush was expressing his confidence in the American soldier's ability to kick ass and take names anytime, anywhere against any foe stupid enough to attack.

He also was, I believe, goading our enemies into attacking because he knew, and our soldiers knew, the attackers would be wiped out.

It is very difficult to fight an enemy if all they do is hide. Goad them, shame them, taunt them, and humiliate them into attacking a superior force with better discipline, air superiority, and overwhelming firepower.

In short, get them to engage in direct combat on our terms so they could be destroyed.

There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on."Oh brother. Because, the implication is, if they fight us there and they attack us WE WILL KILL THEM. What do you think armies are used for? To achieve objectives. to kill enemies. And the whole premise is that it's better to fight the enemy with our armies who are trained and equipped to kill them than to deal with them in our streets with our civilians getting blown to bits. If they wanted to be so stupid as to attack us outright they will lose. That's the premise of the argument. He's not saying please attack us and kill our troops, terrorists. That would be someone like Michael Moore. Only he would use the words "minutemen".

Obama also said:"So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,"

"That is the goal that must be achieved, "That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."

Ok, so if terrorists are opposing us that means that they will be attacking us correct? If we are going into Pakistan to fight the terorrists that kind of means we are moving soldiers into harms way, no? So how is he fundamentally arguing anything different with his "We will defeat you" than Bush is with his "bring it on" rhetoric?

Seven, Althouse made a request for a presidential performance that we found crude and disgusting. I gave an example of what seemed to me to fit the bill. Should I have limited my mental search to the past 8 months?

Althouse made a request for a presidential performance that we found crude and disgusting. I gave an example of what seemed to me to fit the bill.

An extremely stupid example; that could only be made to "fit the bill" by taking a rhetorical device literally.

I'll offer a disgusting one, but not crude: Bill Clinton apologizing for the Rwandan genocide--when he was the one who refused to allow the State Department to call it "genocide", because we would then be legally obligated to intervene.

Peter smugly pronounced:yeah, that must explain why the insurgency ended so soon after Bush made those remarks.

Hmm so Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan and made the quote I posted above. So how come we haven't won in Afghanistan yet Peter huh? Huh?

And I remember that Obama was so snide during the campaign when he said of Mccain. "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

If Obama says "Bring it on" I will get popcorn and enjoy the apoplexia of the left. And I'll support him, as I would support virtually every president in virtually every war.

Take Afghanistan. We're there by pure happenstance because it's where a rogue non-state actor chose to set up camp after he was kicked out of a couple other places. There's nothing to win, other than keeping Iran surrounded. But I support the military effort, anyway.

I can't recall seeing you around before. Are you new, or have I just been missing the threads in which you were active?

I rarely post at Althouse. I've read her for several years.

Do you doubt, me, peter? Youthink I'm, some kind of partisan hack who only likes Republican wars? My foreign policy views can be found in numerous places on the internet, but here's where you can find some from 2003 - 2005:

He doesn't have the balls. But at any rate, it's not us "neocons" who are rooting for failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling our enemies the minutemen, saying we could never achieve democracy over there and that these wars are taking too long and the war is lost and the president is just sending our boys to be shot in the head for oil, and the surge can't possibly succeed and if we kill the terrorists we only make them stronger and even if a genocide were to occur we cant stay in Iraq. (of course all of those arguments could also be raised about afghanistan which makes you wonder why that war could possibly be won using democrat logic). That's YOUR side. That in fact is Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and MoveOn.org.

If that isn't what you meant, well, I read too much into what you said. But I think that's what you meant.

I believe that civilization must be actively defended against the barbarians who have always threatened it. Buying them off and talking to them only works for a while.

I believe in the Gods of the Copybook Headings, in short.

In 2004 I was talking to a friend about the probable (it seemed at the time) election of John Kerry.

I told him then--we have to swallow our pride and back him to the hilt on Iraq. He doesn't have the strength to stand up to Democrats on the war without unwavering Republican support. If we don't support him, we will fail in Iraq.

Well, Kerry didn't win, so it never came up.

Unfortunately the only witness to that conversation is a Korean postdoc in Georgia, so you have to take my word for it.

If Obama wants to do the right thing-as I see it-in Afghanistan, I will do my little bit to back him up, even if Republicans decide they want to try to make it go bad for him.

I thought the surge was the right thing for Iraq. I wish that it had happened earlier. I think Rumsfeld was the wrong man for the job. I wish that Bush had accepted his resignation a few years earlier. Bush's declaration of support for Rumsfeld just before the 2006 election may have cost the GOP a senate seat.

Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a good way forward in Afghanistan.

I think Rumsfeld was the wrong man for the job. I wish that Bush had accepted his resignation a few years earlier.

I think he was right for the war itself, but maybe wrong for the occupation.

The ultimate decision rested with President Bush, and fundamentally he bears the blame of listening to the wrong people.

At least in the end he learned.

Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a good way forward in Afghanistan.

Well, I can't see that Afghanistan is ever going to turn out as well as even Iraq has; Iraq has been civilized for 5000 years, and Afghanistan never has. But the nastiness can at least be contained.

Some of Winston Churchill's first combat experience was a punitive raid against Afghanistan civilians. It didn't end up too well, and Churchill didn't much like it. I certainly hope it never comes to that sort of thing again.

You want disgusting from a president? How about Bush urging terrorists to attack our soldiers?

It wasn't goading our terrorist enemies into attacking hardened troops that was disgusting; we killed thousands and thousands of Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq — the so-called “flypaper strategy” worked out very well in that regard.

No, what was disgusting was Rumsfeld's and the Pentagon generals' fixation year by year on withdrawing forces from Iraq, and thus not launching the kind of vigorous counter-insurgency operations that Petraeus later implemented, thereby resulting not only in the deaths of many American soldiers but leaving tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians open to merciless slaughter by Al Qaeda and other vicious elements of the insurgency.

After 2006, once Rumsfeld was gone and Petraeus was appointed general in charge of the Iraqi theater, U.S. troops were moved out of their barracks and into seemingly vulnerable locations right in the heart of Iraqi cities where they could act to protect the Iraqi people — whereupon not only did American servicemen's deaths drop dramatically, but those of innocent Iraqis as well — and wha'd'ya know: the war was won.

Ann's hero Rush Limbaugh says at least once during every hour of his program that "Barack Obama hates America". Of course Rush hates now that the President is fighting back; Rush is a classic bully.

I have to wonder -- do you realize how pathetic you sound? You're calling a radio entertainer a "bully" for picking on... the most powerful man on Earth. Is Obama that much of a pussy? He can't hold his own against a talk show host without a legion of supporters to defend him?

All this talk about coddled presidents and White Houses that can't deal with disagreements, I keep thinking, "Wait, are they talking about Bush?"

I'll never understand why people can't see why there is a difference in wanting to present a united front from an ADMINISTRATION versus expecting that all PRIVATE CITIZENs agree with you. Totally, completely different animals.

I suspect like the fake veterans who brags about their heroics in battles that they never saw

I don't see how LBJ is relevant to the discussion.

most of you guys are middlings who pump up your egos about how individualistic you are while collecting your social security or state university paychecks.

Isn't that, basically, how our current President made money?

Let me know if there's any corruption in this health care legislation that rises to the level of Tom Scully and Billy Tauzin. They worked to get Medicare, Part D passed while obscuring the actual costs from Congress.

Obama has tried to get the CBO to back off their estimates and influence their analysis. He did so personally.

So, yeah, that kinda dwarfs them.

And doesn't anyone want to take issue with my statement that, coming from the president, urging the enemy to attack our troops is more crude and disgusting than calling one's critics liars?

If you have to ask, then you, apparently, cannot tell when somebody isn't taking your claim seriously.

Hey, I read this whole thread (whew!) and I didn't see a single explanation for what, specifically, about the speech was crude and/or disgusting.

Conservatives have explained it.

So, to give you a heads up:

Obama spent a lot of time in the speech to attack all of his critics as being liars, etc and that they just need to shut up and do what he wants.

Obama has no idea how to deal with people who disagree with him and that he can't charm. He is angry and bitter and petulent about the fact that people won't go along with him.

It does the President no good to get down in the mud and wrestle with the opposition. The President is the most powerful person on earth. He ought to be above fighting with Rush Limbaugh. Yeah, people like Former Law Student love it. But, those people would support the President no matter what. The rest of the country either likes Limbaugh and are annoyed or are left wondering why, in a time of 10% unemployment and two ongoing wars, the President finds time to snipe at an ex governor and a talkshow host.

Further, when the majority of the country doesn't agree with your plan, you do yourself no good calling everyone who disagrees with you obstructionists, game players and bickerers. What exactly was Obama saying to the 53% of the country who disaprove of his handling of healthcare when he said "the time for bickering and game playing is over"? Whatever it was, that kind of language and smug dismissive tone isn't going to convince anyone.

Obama speaks like a Senator from a safe seat who has no need to reach out and convince or communicate with anyone other than his own side. That works well when you are junior Senator from a blue state. It is an absolute disaster if you are President.

Many Democrats simply do not understand democracy. For years, Obama has thought that the ills of this country could be corrected if only a community organizer became president. Now that that's happened, he reminds us of this grace often;"I'm the president."

Democrats think that the authenticity of the office and the setting of the Congressional Joint Session are enough to justify all.

Amazing. Now if the GOP will only come up with something - anything - any ideas, just one then we wouldn't have to listen to this fat asshole dripping grease out of ever pore and have some real discussion.

as it is the GOP main mechanism for political opposition rests with a drug addict psycho emptying himself daily to a bunch of shitforbrains who eat up his crap.

Not sure why Ann listens to him and frankly it is intellectually disappointing that she does.

"Amazing. Now if the GOP will only come up with something - anything - any ideas, just one then we wouldn't have to listen to this fat asshole dripping grease out of ever pore and have some real discussion."

The GOP has lots of ideas. The CEO of whole foods gave an 8 point plan in the WSJ. And the enlightened progressive response was to boycott his store and try to ruin his career for daring to question the Obamasiah.

Further, even if what you are saying were true, which it is not, the lack of ideas by the minority doesn't make the majority's dingbat ideas any better.

The entire Democratic response since BO took office has been "I won no one has a right to have a say in anything". Fine, you are in charge. But you can't then blame the other side when your idiotic ideas fail miserably.

Obama might do better if he would stop lying. During the Primaries, he had raked poor Hillary Clinton over the coals for admitting that her road to universal coverage was paved with an individual mandate. "Everyone would be forced to buy coverage, even if you can't afford it," warned Obama in an ad. "You pay a penalty if you don't." But now he is pursuing just that mandate.